Our cities need more than ‘chequebook federalism’

Federal politicians attending the meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago might be forgiven for feeling a little put off.

For years the FCM annual conference had been the place where the Ottawa two-step was danced. It was where prime ministers and wannabe prime ministers came to woo mayors and their cities with promises of federal programs and federal dollars — and where mayors and councillors returned the favour by heaping praise and gratitude on the feds for delivering said dollars.

It was also the place where, with few exceptions — Paul Martin’s 2002 New Deal speech being one — the best applause lines were always about the money.

This year the mayors changed their tune, leaving the Ottawa contingent wondering if they still had a dance partner.

The mayors turned the tables by releasing a report at their conference stating emphatically that when it comes to the federal role in fixing the deep-rooted problems in Canada’s cities, it’s not about the money.
In fact, the report, titled The State of Canada’s Cities: 2013, suggests that Ottawa’s chequebook fixation is what’s really wrong with the system.

And although the report pulls its punches somewhat by avoiding detailed critiques of federal programs aimed at cities, it describes a system built around short-term considerations and lubricated by political expediency.

Reading between the lines, this is a system that delivers photo-ops and half-measures. At the root of the problem is not pandemic venality but a 21st century political relationship governed by a 19th century constitution.

Under our constitution, the federal government has no direct role in local governments, but this has not kept it from using its spending power to intervene in municipal affairs, particularly in the area of infrastructure funding.

It’s not surprising. After all, investing in roads, bridges and even bocce courts gives even the most fiscally conservative MP something tangible to write about in the householder. It’s great to talk about trade deals and fighter jets and macroeconomic policy, but when you want to explain to your constituents exactly what it is you do for them, it’s nice to be able to point to something with three dimensions from time to time.

The result is that billions of dollars have been spent over the last 20 years fixing roads and building water treatment plants — but not on the problems that have cities knocking on the federal government’s door year after year.

Under our constitution, the federal government has no direct role in local governments, but this has not kept it from using its spending power to intervene in municipal affairs, particularly in the area of infrastructure funding.

The report says the current system blurs accountabilities — often leaving the provinces out of the political and policy loop — encourages the use of the federal spending power and fosters the illusion of action through the proliferation of boutique federal programs that provide visibility but little in the form of accountability.

Rightly, FCM rejects any talk of opening up the constitution to fix this situation. It tried that in the early 90s and it was a dead end. Instead, it calls for a clear federal policy and accountability framework to govern federal programs in this area.

In practical terms, it would mean that federal policies would come with a clear expression of the federal interest, measurable outcomes and an incentive to design programs that actually do what they’re supposed to do.

It sounds simple; achieving it will be anything but.

The release of this report represents an important and gutsy policy and political reset for an organization and sector that, over the last decade, has been at the front of the receiving line for federal largesse.
With its report FCM signals that there are real shortcomings to the traditional politics of elite accommodation and checkbook federalism, and that sometimes getting at the root causes of a issue can be a good thing.

FCM has named the problem: An outdated system that gives governments and others cover for short-term, politically motivated policies in the face of growing cross-jurisdictional policy challenges. Now it’s up to the federal government to own up to this and start measuring success not by how many dollars it spends but by how many problems it fixes.

Failing that, Canada’s cities will continue to struggle, and the Ottawa two-step will continue to be the rage.

Massimo Bergamini is president of InterChange Public Affairs, an Ottawa-based public affairs firm. He has over 30 years experience in political communications dating back to the 1980 Quebec referendum. He was director of communications to two federal cabinet ministers in the 1990s and, before founding InterChange in 2008, headed the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ policy and communications department.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

More from iPolitics

Author

Massimo Bergamini is president of InterChange Public Affairs, an Ottawa-based public affairs firm. He has over 30 years experience in political communications dating back to the 1980 Quebec referendum. He was director of communications to two federal cabinet ministers in the 1990’s, and, before founding InterChange in 2008, headed the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ policy and communications department.